'...There's a suggestion
of drug-trafficking busting and being "droned" to death.'
AND a whole lot of being
"Boston Brakes" to death. "Boston Brakes" = no brakes.
pjr
From: legal_reality@earthlink.net
To: legal_reality@earthlink.net
Sent: 6/22/2013 12:45:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: “We Got The Message…”
To: legal_reality@earthlink.net
Sent: 6/22/2013 12:45:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: “We Got The Message…”
22 June A.D. 2013
Investigation into, analysis of, the assassination/murder of journalist Michael Hastings.
There's a suggestion of drug-trafficking busting and being "droned" to death.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
Investigation into, analysis of, the assassination/murder of journalist Michael Hastings.
There's a suggestion of drug-trafficking busting and being "droned" to death.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
“We Got The Message…”
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:22:05 -0700
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:22:05 -0700
One more reason to avoid
computer controlled cars and trucks.
From: legal_reality@earthlink.net
To: legal_reality@earthlink.net
Sent: 6/23/2013 6:47:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Evidence of "motive"
To: legal_reality@earthlink.net
Sent: 6/23/2013 6:47:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Evidence of "motive"
23 June A.D. 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHTDmZuDwYA
(The list of abuses, interestingly, doesn't include Waco, or the Murrah Building bombing, or the series of murders of the scientists, or of the politicians (killed in planes, mostly), or the other witnesses, e.g., the DC Madame, etc.)
A comment made that is "constitution-ist" in nature is that the "constitution" has been violated from essentially the beginning.
Presume the conclusion, unsupported in this particular video, correct. This, then, begs the question for which this author, as just one of several, has the answer. The question is, "Have those alleged 'constitutional' violations really been such?" And, the answer is, "No, not actually." There can't be a "constitutional" violation until there's a "constitution" to violate. Since we do not have and have never had a "constitution," while there are, to be sure, violations of concepts we call "rights," there has never actually been a violation of the "constitution" by the "government," because there simply is no such body of law extant in this nation.
Thus, judicially recognized 1st Amendment, or 2d Amendment, or 4th Amendment, etc., doctrines, which are quite active, can be violated. But the "constitution" can't be, as such, because it just simply isn't there (as admissible evidence of law).
This current system, which this author likens to a bank, was not created by any "constitution," meaning, of course, that it can't be limited by any "constitution," either.
It's a commercial entity/system, meaning that the limits are commercial in nature, which translates, then, not into "group think" but rather into individual thought, word, and action.
That which passes as law (and is codified outside the penal code(s)) is really "public policy," which is activated when agreed to, individually. The psychological trauma inflicted upon us, whether via inside job massacres or tv/movie programming (which is literally programming, hence the extremely appropriate labeling, as is "federal") has a purpose. This short video explores and states that purpose.
To vote for more of that sort of thing, all we have to do is just keep using the Fourth Reich's "funny money."
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHTDmZuDwYA
(The list of abuses, interestingly, doesn't include Waco, or the Murrah Building bombing, or the series of murders of the scientists, or of the politicians (killed in planes, mostly), or the other witnesses, e.g., the DC Madame, etc.)
A comment made that is "constitution-ist" in nature is that the "constitution" has been violated from essentially the beginning.
Presume the conclusion, unsupported in this particular video, correct. This, then, begs the question for which this author, as just one of several, has the answer. The question is, "Have those alleged 'constitutional' violations really been such?" And, the answer is, "No, not actually." There can't be a "constitutional" violation until there's a "constitution" to violate. Since we do not have and have never had a "constitution," while there are, to be sure, violations of concepts we call "rights," there has never actually been a violation of the "constitution" by the "government," because there simply is no such body of law extant in this nation.
Thus, judicially recognized 1st Amendment, or 2d Amendment, or 4th Amendment, etc., doctrines, which are quite active, can be violated. But the "constitution" can't be, as such, because it just simply isn't there (as admissible evidence of law).
This current system, which this author likens to a bank, was not created by any "constitution," meaning, of course, that it can't be limited by any "constitution," either.
It's a commercial entity/system, meaning that the limits are commercial in nature, which translates, then, not into "group think" but rather into individual thought, word, and action.
That which passes as law (and is codified outside the penal code(s)) is really "public policy," which is activated when agreed to, individually. The psychological trauma inflicted upon us, whether via inside job massacres or tv/movie programming (which is literally programming, hence the extremely appropriate labeling, as is "federal") has a purpose. This short video explores and states that purpose.
To vote for more of that sort of thing, all we have to do is just keep using the Fourth Reich's "funny money."
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
No comments:
Post a Comment